Letters to the Editor - February 28, 2011

Monday

Feb 28, 2011 at 3:15 AM

@Brief head:Retain control over commercial signs

Editor, The Citizen:

For 17 years the Town of Moultonborough's Zoning Ordinance has not allowed "for rent" signs that advertise rental brokers. Such signs are a signal that houses are vacant which can be lead to vandalism and break-ins. Brokers desiring such signs have always needed sign permits, which has effectively limited the number of such signs due to the required $25 fee.

When the Town's largest rental broker posted signs without obtaining permits, the Town's Code Enforcement Officer requested their removal, which did not occur. When the Planning Board was told of this, instead of supporting the Code Enforcement Officer, a Board member proposed legalizing such fee free signs despite significant public opposition before the Board.

Unfortunately the Board in recommending approval of this Article has placed business interests above the safety and visual pollution concerns expressed by residents objecting to this proposal.

To make matters worse, instead of the originally proposed 12 by 18 inch sign initially proposed, the Board ultimately recommended an article that would allow two fee free double sided 3 by 4 foot signs, for a total of 48 square feet of advertising at each rental property without any revenue due to the Town in these difficult economic times.

Voters should be aware that there are at least 6 rental brokers who advertise that they represent hundreds of rental properties, meaning that a change to allow free brokerage signage could result in a theoretical 1600 + new signs, almost all of which would be in residentially zoned areas near the lakes that will red flag vacant homes and create visual eyesores.

For almost two decades Real Estate brokers through advertising and the internet, have had no trouble renting properties without commercial signs. This article is a totally unneeded change to the zoning ordinance. Please vote NO to Article 9 on March 8 and keep Moultonborough commercial signage under control.

Eric Taussig

Moultonborough

@Brief head:Keep the boards

Editor, The Citizen:

I strongly urge Tamworth voters to vote against abolishing the Planning Board (at the polls, March 8) and the Conservation Commission (Town Meeting, March 9).

If we do not like the people on these essential boards, or think they are not fulfilling the duties carefully described for them, we can certainly not vote for them, or we can volunteer to do the work ourselves.

But we need these essential bodies to remain active in our township, partly because it is mandated by the state, and partly because it is mandated by common sense: they do careful and important work for all of us who live here. To find out more about what they do, there is an informative session on Monday, Feb. 28 from 5:30-6:45 at the Brett School Gym, just before before the Candidates' Night forum.

Please vote No on Article 4 on Tuesday at the polls. Vote No on Article 5 at Town Meeting on Wednesday evening.

Peggy Johnson

Wonalancet

@Brief head:Get the facts right

Editor, The Citizen:

An astonishing amount of misinformation is being sent out to CH voters in an effort to undermine the proposed new police building.

Two of the more extraordinary claims are 1) that the building will cost taxpayers between $1.7 million (January's figure) and $3.1 million (February's update!). In fact, the total cost of building and land cannot exceed $1.275 million as that is all the money we are asked to approve on March 8.

The second claim is that the Town would be paying 250% of the McCahan property's assessed value. In fact, this property is currently assessed at $249,000 and the Town's option-to-purchase is $199,000 - 80% of assessed value.

More disturbing are efforts to shoot down the project by claiming that our PD is overstaffed, should be shrunk, and in any case, needs, at most, some minor alterations to its existing space. But in 2003 voters approved a requested increase from two to three full-time officers and have consistently approved all police department budgets ever since. As to space needs, at present our PD must use Meredith's police building for all but the most routine paperwork. If Meredith is having a busy day, our people have to wait around until facilities become available. And how long are we going to be able to freeload off the Meredith taxpayer?

Please, before you vote on March 8, do your own homework. The Town has published a "Frequently Asked Questions" sheet. You can get it online or at Town Hall.

And one more thing: As the Town proposes paying off the bond through a 30-year mortgage, this building will cost the taxpayer $0.15 per $1,000 assessed property value. If your home is worth $300,000, you'll pay $45.00 a year in additional tax.

It was a nice touch how he used Atlantic City as his spring board. The truth is Harry the State has the dibs on all the gaming and liquor in NH so please spare us the sky is falling scenario if Gaming comes to NH.

Convience store owners all over this state see the addictions that our own State Lottery causes every day, it's strange how you didn't mention that.

Get real Harry, nobody is buying what you're selling.

The fact is the State of NH owns the monopoly of gaming in this state and they don't want anyone else to PLAY.

Fear is a boring political ploy, please don't insult us again; the voters of this state are not fools, I think we proved that last November.

We have a beautiful state, Harry says, Lakes, Forest, Mountains. Get some wiper fluid for your car Harry, the view of exit 20 has changed.

Tom Sellew

Tilton

@Brief head:Illegal lobbying

Editor, The Citizen:

Why do elected officials in Wolfeboro think they can flout state law by using offical documents for electioneering?

People in Wolfeboro are receiving the computer registration reminder forms from Town Hall with "vote yes on warrant article 12" printed on them. This is a violation of state law.

Warrant Article 12 is the March warrant to spend $4 million dollars to rebuild Brewster Hall, a proposal that has been defeated several times by the voters. Evidently the Board of Selectmen feel any sort of tactic, legal or otherwise should be employed to achieve their goals. And if the response from Town Hall is that is was a "mistake", you have to ask yourself why taxpayer funded computers even had an electioneering slogan on them.

John Linville

Wolfeboro

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.